In lieu of the many articles or blogs written about not digging Digg lately, including my own, something should be mentioned about their good side. Although they are banning a lot of big submitting players and a lot of people who are related to sale sites, they aren't banning the articles who are framing digg in a bad light. You may think this isn't a big deal in our day and age how some sites don't censor their stories and let everything play. Especially since the blogosphere runs so deep, how can they censor? But, many sites still do.

It is a matter of picking out some of the worst statements or blogs and only leaving the ones which are somewhat bad but not devastating to the company. We see this with testimonials. If you ever go to a company site with testimonials, you will see how they have the good, excellent and somewhat bad posts, but never the REALLY bad ones. I don't blame them either, it's just good marketing.

With Digg though, it seems they let it all ride. Freedom of speech is their backbone and they stick to it. They are trying to do the best they can to deliver unbiased and un"ad"contaminated goods for us to consume. If that means they cut out a few sites who might look spammy but aren't , isn't that better than letting in all the ones who are? If we take out a lot of the big players who make many of the articles which go to the front page, doesn't this mean more room for the little guy to get up there? It's a hard line for them to find and draw but I think they have done a great job of it so far.